Two of a kind

There are not many people who have the confidence to go against the consensus of a whole nation. I thought I knew of only one, who lived a long time back, decades before I was born. Who did not care of opinion of anyone, not even his closest ones. When he decided to call off mass movements he himself started. When all around him opposed him. When he would himself have thought that his act would go down in history as accepting defeat in face of victory.

Until, that is, Ram Jethmalani decided to defend Manu Sharma.

Why would anybody want to defend Manu.

Why? Ram 'loses' no matter what happens to the case. The public/media have made the decision already. No body, except the close friends of Manu Sharma would admire his intent to defend Manu.

Why? In Counterpoint , Vir Sanghvi suggests he's getting a fat paycheck. I rule that out, mostly for my own whimsical reasons, but also because the man is too old to drool for a few rupees more.

Why? I am sure even he doesn't believe Manu Sharma is innocent.

The only plausible reason is his disillusionment with the route the law took. He is a lawyer, and he believes in integrity of justice, of the process of attaining justice. Of evidence, of proof. And he believes that this integrity is being stripped away by the way the media and the public opinion have influenced the judges' decision. He believes this case is setting up a precedent for public trial, a trial by votes, a trial by public opinion. And considering the media influence on the vocal and visible section of the society, this case is a precedent for trial by media. Certainly not the way the law is supposed to function.

Do I support his stand? No. I don't personally know what evidence is there against Manu. I know very little of the claims of fabrication of evidence. The articles that I have come across generate no sympathy for Manu. I dearly hope that Ram would back-off once he has made his point. But I fear that the only way for him to make his point is by proving lack of sufficient evidence against Manu.

Yes, Manu may be wrong. But he can't be punished if the evidence is not there. If the witnessess backed off, our society must learn to be bold to stand for statements. If evidence was fabricated, India has to have police officers who perform their duty with honesty. But if Manu is punished today, without sufficient evidence, then some innocent would be punished tomorrow.


Consider this. In the fading years of his life, the man has the courage to go against opinion of each person in the country he has lived in all along. Knowing that all it would bring to him is infamy. That most would not even understand the point he is underlining.

It is not the first time for him. He voiced his opinions against Rajiv Gandhi, and single-handedly got him out of power. He defended Indira Gandhi's assassins (albeit, without much success). He was once the vice-president of BJP, the same party whom he contested against in the recent elections, by standing as an independent candidate against Vajpayee. He stood for Geelani, who was to be hanged. And he continues his crusade against wrong. Against what ever he believes is wrong.

However, even for this seasoned rebel, it is the first time when no one, absolutely no one, stands with him. Even his family members have distanced themselves from him. And he is not oblivious of this obvious displeasure. He knows it all. But he also knows he is right.

Probably its not a coincidence that he is a lawyer, too. Probably another lawyer, a long time back, when I wasn't even born, would have nodded in admiration.


Addendum (18th Dec): Yesterday, Manu was held guilty by the court. I found that Jethmalani came up with flawed, fabricated theories in support of Manu. In that light, I withdraw my case in the article above.